[sigmoid10]

I particularly enjoy reading big banners asking me to pay for a newsletter subscription if I "liked" the content. Not if I found it interesting. Not if it actually provided any value whatsoever to me. No, you just have to "like" it. In other words, it is meant to be written in an engaging way and perhaps reinforce your believes like an echo chamber or even stir up certain strong emotions. Not to convey information. So, thanks, but no. I'm sure this opinion blog is very well written, but I don't think it is more well founded than anything else in this sea of opinions that sports a bigger garbage patch than the Pacific Ocean.

[argee]

A big chunk of text asked for support on the basis of the article. I hadn’t read the article.

I scrolled down a bit to read. A popup took up my screen, asking me to subscribe, having read essentially nothing at this point.

I just left. Life is too short.

[dolebirchwood]

I know the HN guidelines discourage commenting on "tangential annoyances" on a website, but I think this issue is more than just tangential and more than just an annoyance.

When an author is this relentless in pushing you to sign up, there is good reason to suspect that financial motives are unduly driving an agenda.

I counted 8 such instances:

1. In the sidebar

2. At the top of the article

3. Popup in the middle of the screen after just a couple of scrolls into the body

4. Several paragraphs into the article

5. At the bottom of the article

6. At the bottom of the page under the comments section

7. Popup at the bottom of the screen after scrolling to the end of the body

8. (My personal favorite) Click the "user" icon in the bottom-right corner, which you'd normally expect to open an AI chat bot these days, and (surprise) you're prompted to sign up for a paid subscription

This sort of behavior just completely tanks any and all credibility this person may have.

[shimman]

Of things to be upset about, an independent journalist asking readers to pay for access ranks very low. Especially compared to LLM companies that are exacerbating the climate crisis, increasing cancer rates among residents, or increasing utilities for residents.

This sort of behavior completely tanks any and all credibility this commentator may have.

[no-name-here]

Is the OP article “journalism” or more of a rant with self-aggrandizement about how they’re so smart and such a good person that it makes lots of people angry?

[tempfile]

What are you talking about? Why is "liking" something mutually exclusive with conveying information? I like lots of things precisely because they convey information!

[sigmoid10]

>I like lots of things precisely because they convey information!

Correction: You may like them because you think they convey information. But without any sort of vetting process, the internet has become a cesspool of "news" or "general knowledge" places that ended up quite successful, but which are essentially just a contest of who is most confident when talking about topics and who can present bullshit in the most engaging way. You can see the peak of this on the JRE podcast. Anyone with actual expertise in a subject would be able to call out many of the guests, but since the host knows nothing about most of their fields he just gives them a platform to spread their opinions as facts. And millions of people who also don't know better will accept them without question.